The Benchmark International lawsuit at the center of current attention is Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al., a breach of contract case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The Tampa-based mergers and acquisitions advisory firm is suing brothers Gerard and Nicholas Burdi, owners of New Jersey’s Union Paving & Construction Co. and Tracks Unlimited, LLC, over whether an internal ownership transfer to a nephew triggered a brokerage fee under the parties’ 2021 engagement agreement. Trial is set for the November 2026 term, commencing November 2, 2026.1PACER Monitor. Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al.
What the Case Is About
In December 2021, the Burdi brothers and their two companies signed a brokerage agreement with Benchmark to market and sell ownership interests or assets of Union Paving and Tracks Unlimited. The agreement was amended in February 2022.2Justia. Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al.
The relationship fell apart in August 2023. The defendants told Benchmark that Nicholas Burdi’s ownership interest had been “bought out” by his nephew, Kyle Burdi, through promissory notes. Benchmark says that internal buyout qualifies as a “Transaction” under the contract, which would entitle the firm to a fee and require the defendants to hand over the underlying agreements and an accounting sufficient to calculate it. The Burdis take the opposite view, calling the transfer an estate planning move that falls outside the contract’s definition of a “Transaction.”2Justia. Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al.
Benchmark filed a single-count breach of contract complaint in early 2024, case number 8:24-cv-00265, before Judge Mary S. Scriven. The claim is that the defendants materially breached the agreement by refusing to produce deal documentation and the accounting Benchmark needs to compute its fee.2Justia. Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al. Carlton Fields, Haynes Boone, and Holland & Knight are involved in the litigation.3Law360. Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al. Docket
The Key Ruling So Far
The most consequential ruling to date came on October 24, 2024, when Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone denied Benchmark’s motion to compel production of documents. Benchmark had asked the court to force the Burdis to produce the very agreements and financial records at the heart of its case. The court found this was an impermissible attempt to obtain “ultimate relief under the guise of discovery,” reasoning that Benchmark was trying to use discovery to get documents it would only be entitled to if it won on the merits.2Justia. Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al.
Where the Case Stands
The case remains active. There is no settlement, damages award, or final judgment. On June 17, 2026, Judge Scriven extended some pretrial deadlines, setting September 10, 2026, for a joint final pretrial statement and September 18, 2026, for motions in limine. The order also noted that the deadline for dispositive motions had already passed and would not be reopened, so the case is moving to trial in November 2026.1PACER Monitor. Benchmark International CSSA, LLC v. Burdi et al.
Benchmark’s Broader Pattern of Fee Disputes
The Burdi case fits a recurring pattern. Benchmark has been on both sides of contract litigation over how its brokerage fees are defined and calculated.
Carpet Super Mart v. Benchmark
Here, a former client sued. Carpet Super Mart, Inc. and its owners Arthur C. Jordan, Jr. and Joyce J. Mobley had contracted with Benchmark for “5% of the Transaction Value” on a sale of assets. After closing, the client argued that Benchmark representatives had orally promised the fee would be limited to 5% of the purchase price, while the written contract defined “Transaction Value” more broadly as the total benefit received from the deal. Carpet Super Mart sued for a declaratory judgment that the agreement was unenforceable and brought fraud and unfair-and-deceptive-trade-practices claims, and also argued that Benchmark had never provided its “standard terms and conditions” incorporated by reference.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Carpet Super Mart, Inc. v. Benchmark International Company Sales Specialist, LLC
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed the case, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed on January 8, 2020. The appeals court held that reliance on oral representations was unreasonable given the written contract’s clear language, and that because the existence of the standard terms was “readily apparent from the face of the agreement,” it was the client’s responsibility to request them. The challenge to those incorporated terms was deemed abandoned because the client only made a passing reference to it on appeal.4U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Carpet Super Mart, Inc. v. Benchmark International Company Sales Specialist, LLC
Benchmark v. Schulte
Benchmark sued Christopher M. Schulte, Pensacola Apothecary, Inc., Everwell Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, and related entities in Florida’s Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in March 2021. A motion to compel was granted in July 2022, and the case ended with a final judgment in March 2023. Collection followed, including writs of garnishment against bank accounts, until a satisfaction of judgment was recorded in December 2024.5UniCourt. Benchmark International Company Sales Specialist, LLC vs. Schulte, Christopher M.
Benchmark v. Wilde Wood Construction
Benchmark also sued Wilde Wood Construction and Development Group, LLC, and its principal Norm Ashby, in Hillsborough County, Florida, in August 2018. The defendant removed the case to federal court, but both sides quickly agreed to remand it, and the federal case closed in September 2018.6UniCourt. Benchmark International Company Sales Specialist, LLC v. Wilde Wood Construction and Development Group, LLC et al. The outcome of the state-court proceedings is not reflected in available federal records.